Graphics Matter – Year 5

Has it been that long since Linoge started posting a very useful graphic at his blog “Walls of the City“?
Yep, 5 years of clearly showing that the bumper sticker slogan of the antis “more guns = more deaths” is simply not true.


If you haven’t already, check out this incredible work; provided with information to the source data. Something you’ll rarely see the antis provide.


— And I haven’t been ignoring you, just not been in a position to post the last couple of days. I hope to explain why this has been a good thing.



Judge and Jury Apparently

I knew the anti-rights cultists would push the idea that every gun owner is a criminal in disguise  ”  I’ll tell you why.  All a “law abiding citizen” really is, is a previously unconvicted felon waiting to commit his first crime”. but sometimes you think they would give a person the benefit of the doubt.

Joan Peterson Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence board Member, co-president of the Northland Chapter of the Brady Campaign, President of  Minnesota Million Moms March, Spokesperson for Protect Minnesota ; aka Japete doesn’t seem to want to cut Will Hayden any slack though.

Under the category of- “you can’t make this stuff up” comes yet another “good guy with a gun” doing something so heinous that he was arrested. This gun guy has been raping his young daughter for years. Stories like this should alarm us all. This man is not a “good guy with a gun” though he has been posing as one. Disgusting to say the least. From the article:

No mention that it is just an accusation at this stage. That no evidence has been heard, no defense presented — nope this “gun guy has been raping” — and “this many is not a ‘good guy with a gun’  – she’s already made up her mind regardless of the facts.

Now I don’t know if he is guilty or not; until the trial is over he has the presumption of innocence or at least should.

This is really indicative of the gun grabber mentality; mere accusation, any reason is sufficient to smear someone they disagree with.

Nor are they too concerned with the accuracy either

School is starting all over the country. Let’s talk about arming teachers. Texas passed a law after the Sandy Hook shooting allowing teachers to carry guns in schools.

Texas state law did change recently but it was a specific law the “School Marshal” program.

But for a very long time; it has been legal for staff, teachers, or other to be armed on school property.

Sec. 46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):

(1) on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution; (empahsis mine – Bob S.)

Harrold Independent School, for example, has authorized employees to be armed since 2007. Hardly a case of Texas changing the law after Sandy Hook. Guess Joan is too busy to figure out such details, eh. That law has been in place, as near as I can tell, since 1974.  2 decades prior to the passage of Concealed Carry. So why doesn’t Joan Peterson want to focus on the recent law? To hide the fact that decades of experience have taught us trusting the people in schools with firearms hasn’t been a problem.


Really makes me wonder why the antis can’t seem to get the facts straight. Maybe they don’t want to — maybe they think their goal is too important to risk telling the truth. In which case, I ask — can we trust them when they say they only want ‘reasonable restrictions”?

Please join the discussion.




Longing for the Past…

…when rampant speculation and innuendo was mostly found on the trashy papers like the National Enquirer; not the Atlantic Journal-Constitution.

This is a follow to a previous post. I was interested in seeing if more information has came out. Apparently not but that doesn’t stop the AJC from filling column space.

Family members and the White County coroner on Monday identified Araim as the victim of a shooting that stunned tourists and residents in Helen, a town of 500 people about 90 miles northeast of downtown Atlanta. The police have released few details of their investigation, but said they planned to file involuntary manslaughter charges against 53-year-old Glenn Patrick Lampien of Jasper. His small-caliber handgun apparently fired by accident, wounding his hand before crossing the street and striking Araim. She was pronounced dead at the scene.


Okay….so the facts known right now. Ms. Araim is dead and the shot came from a firearm owned and carried by Lampien. Most people would stop there, right?

Whether Lampien saw Araim and the other women before the shooting was not clear. Neither the Helen police nor the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, which took over the case Sunday, responded to requests for information Monday. The Helen police deleted information about the shooting posted Sunday on the department’s Facebook page.

The case fueled online debate about a new Georgia law that greatly expanded the rights of gun owners to carry weapons in public places, such as bars. The new statute, which took effect last month, has been labeled the “Guns Everywhere” law.

It was not known whether Lampien, the owner of a commercial and industrial air conditioning company, had a concealed-carry permit for his handgun. Nor was it known whether he had removed the weapon from a holster before the shot fired. Lampien received a minor hand injury and was treated at a Gainesville hospital.

Now as bad as the AJC, some it seems they don’t hold a shine to anti-rights cultists like Southern Beale

Did GA’s Liberal Gun Laws Enable A Hate Crime?

Starting to look that way:


Now I’ll admit it is possible that a ‘hate crime’ could be the motivation here but isn’t it a little early to be trying to draw that conclusion?

Especially since the person in question a.) not only didn’t try to flee the scene of the ‘crime’ and b.) injured himself committing the ‘crime’. I am not saying those rule out his intentions; he could just be that incompetent. But doesn’t it make a little sense to wait a little longer?

Oh….probably not in their case because as we’ve seen all too often they have to distort the truth and try to make every gun owner look bad in order to push their agenda.

Please join the discussion.

Don’t Confuse Me With Facts — Part 809

I use WordPress’ built in ‘tag’ explorer to see what other people are writing. I saw this title for a blog post pop up today

One example of why homicides are higher in states with “Stand your ground” laws

Curious I clicked over and read it.

He talks about the recent “Guns Anywhere” Bill — which is a tenuous stretch regarding “Stand Your Ground Laws”. And the incident he linked to?

Police said the bullet came from a small-caliber handgun carried by a 53-year-old man from Jasper, Ga. The gun accidentally discharged, and the bullet traveled across Helen’s tourist-laden Main Street and struck the woman in the side.

Bystanders attempted to administer first aid, police said, but authorities pronounced the woman dead at the scene.

The shooting took place outside the Old Heidelberg restaurant and bar, one of many Bavarian-themed businesses in Helen, a town of about 500 residents in White County, 90 miles northeast of downtown Atlanta.

Completely unrelated to “Stand Your Ground” laws in any way, wouldn’t you agree?

I pointed out, nicely for me, that the incident had nothing to do with either Stand Your Ground or the new laws; restaurants were removed from the list of prohibited places 4 years prior according to my quick research — SB308 signed into law June of 2010.

His response was typical of the anti-rights cultists:

Well, I consider it pretty obvious that a law that allows a mix of guns, liquor, and public places will lead to more shootings, accidental or intentional, than a law that prohibits such a mix. This is evident to me; the fact that it is not evident to you sort of brings the discussion to a close. Aristotle commented on the folly of trying to convince someone of something obvious through the use of things that are not. So if you don’t see it, we can agree to view reality from different angles.

Thanks for commenting.


The only mention of alcohol was a prior conviction 15 years ago by the gun owner. No information if he was legally carrying, no information if he was drinking again. Heck we don’t even know if he had even been in the restaurant…..but that is enough for some people to jump all over and and anything remotely related.

We have enough legitimate issues to be debating; making up stuff and claiming that various laws are responsible when they aren’t isn’t helping.


And since he made it clear that further comments of mine are unwelcome over there; I’ll add this here:

Well, I consider it pretty obvious that a law that allows a mix of guns, liquor, and public places will lead to more shootings, accidental or intentional, than a law that prohibits such a mix.


Yeah….people thought way before; it was called “Prohibition” and it didn’t work out so well

America had experienced a gradual decline in the rate of serious crimes over much of the 19th and early 20thcenturies. That trend was unintentionally reversed by the efforts of the Prohibition movement. The homicide rate in large cities increased from 5.6 per 100,000 population during the first decade of the century to 8.4 during the second decade when the Harrison Narcotics Act, a wave of state alcohol prohibitions, and World War I alcohol restrictions were enacted. The homicide rate increased to 10 per 100,000 population during the 1920s, a 78 percent increase over the pre-Prohibition period.

Shouldn’t we learn from history ?


Please join the discussion.

Repost — Jew Without A Gun

Robert J. Avrech has reposted his 3 part personal account of the Rodney King /L.A. Riots.

Because of the riots in Ferguson, Missouri, I am republishing my three-part series about the Los Angeles Riots of 1992 in which Karen and I and the children were trapped for several frightening hours. We were unarmed, helpless save for our wits. The police were conspicuously absent and the bad guys, frequently armed with heavy weapons, owned the streets.

It was a defining moment in my life.

I’m reposting this series as a cautionary tale because civil riots sharpen the claws of statist utopians whose ultimate aim is to disarm law-abiding American citizens.

Just as Obamacare has nothing to do with health, and cap and trade has nothing to do with so-called global warming, anti-gun laws have nothing to do with saving children’s lives.


I’ve read it before but it is worth re-reading.

Dissertation Level Fisking ?

Breaking out the fisking shears over here just in case my comment never sees the light of day. I may have been a little too snarky in my reply over there. It seems not to have been published.*

So on with the show.

Evening folk of the world wide web

Tonight I will be sharing my opinion on a subject that I grew to learn a lot about around 2 years ago since it was the matter of my dissertation. And that is the state of gun control in the United States of America.

Remember that statement about his knowledge of the subject. I’m not sure if it is reflective of failures in higher learning or this person’s willingness to distort the truth.


I would like to say now that some of this is going to be subjective opinion and some will be objective fact but I am writing from my own personal perspective and nobody else’s here.

To reiterate, I am a huge advocate of human rights and of personal liberty.I believe everyone should be free to live their lives without fear of intrusive reprisal from the government, so long as what they do isn’t in any way detrimental to their fellows or the state. So in this sense one might say every man or woman is free to own a firearm for the purposes of what they call it – self defence.

Anyone else waiting for him to drop the “I believe but…” line ?


Now don’t get me wrong, a gun is a very effective form of personal safety. If I were a burglar (this isn’t a confession, merely conjecture) I might think twice about breaking into someone’s house if I thought the guy who owned it was packing. Therefore merely the thought of a gun is sometimes useful enough with the need for any bullets to be fired.

In this he is correct and the studies back up his view; like this one

Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either “often” or “regularly” worried that they “[m]ight get shot at by the victim”; and 57% agreed with the statement, “Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.” (James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]. See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 [1994]).

So firearms can be an effective deterrent and that survey was just from the criminals who had been caught and convicted.

But, the tragic real life scenario in the U.S is that bullets are being fired, and in huge quantities. In Britain there are around 60-70 gun related murders every year. In the U.S. this figure is over 10,000. Per year. That’s 10,000 people apparently being killed every circuit of the sun for the paranoia and fear of the American people for their self or property. That’s a lot of people to sacrifice for individual freedom.

Why is it anti-rights cultist follow the same pattern — declaring support for civil rights, limited government, failing to recognize defensive or recreational uses of firearms?

And let’s not forget the claim we are acting out of ‘paranoia and fear’. This is especially poignant coming from someone who has written a dissertation on the subject; surely in writing about ‘gun control’ he would encounter evidence that some of us are acting out of rational evaluation of the crime statistics, that we support the roll back of government intrusion in our lives — and not acting out of fear.

Every notice how anti-rights cultists love to compare the UK and America but fail to mention that for decades ever more restrictive gun control laws have been imposed on the island nation. Like saying

The USA has within its borders around 270 million (registered) guns that it can account for. Most of these are bought legally from firearm retailers, flea markets and private dealers. Bullets can even be found in such places as a K-Mart. Mind-boggling. This equates to 1 gun for every 0.87 person in America. Incredibly America does not have the highest gun ownership percentage in the world – they fall behind Switzerland where it is mandatory to keep a fully functioning gun in the house at all times – a gun:person rate of around 1-0.997.

This was where I asked him if he really went to a college and if he did, I suggested he get his money back. Or take a refresher math class. He reversed the numbers in his math. Given there are approximately 313 Million people and 270 Million firearms that means there is 1 gun for ever 1.16 people. Or 0.87 guns per person. Of course an academic fails to cover the firearm homicide rates aren’t all that far off if you compare per 100K of firearms. Surely someone who is writing on a dissertation level would check his math. Right?

In the UK, there are approximately 1.8 million registered firearms and using his number of 60 firearm related homicides gives us 3.31 homicides per 100K firearms. In America, going with the higher 12,000 homicides  and 270 Million gives us 4.44 homicides per 100K firearms. So instead of being 200 times more homicidal that the UK, it looks to be only 33 percent more.


What a gun does is turn any situation potentially lethal. You go to any town in Britain at a weekend and you see drink-sodden souls throwing each other through windows or playing at fisticuffs but extremely rarely do these brawls result in fatality. However with the presence of a gun the sense of danger is incredibly heightened. A misunderstanding coupled with intoxication prevents a very real scenario where the use of a gun will result tragically.

So violence seems to be acceptable to him as long as it isn’t ‘gun violence’. Of course, that ignores the very real existence of the same type of brawling violence here in America. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports over 5,00,000 violent crimes each year. Only a fraction of those are firearm related; around 8%. So perhaps the ‘presence of a gun’ doesn’t heighten the danger that much.

And there two possible reasons for that; first because of Defensive Gun Uses, where the presence or threat of a firearm, stops a crime. Second, it matters greatly who is carrying the firearm. Texas, like many states, tracks the conviction rates of those with a Concealed Handgun License. The current rate is around 0.18% of all convictions. That is for all crimes, firearm related or not. If they have a CHL and a conviction it is reported. So the majority of the people are law abiding and don’t cause the problems so feared by the anti-rights cultists.


One story from America that always resonated with me was a man who was bothered by some kids playing loud music outside his house, when he went out to ask them to turn it down and they refused, he shot one of them point blank and killed the lad. A perfectly mundane situation that happens thousands of times a day – blackened by the use of a gun.

Another common tactic – Joan Peterson of Commongunsense, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence board Member, co-president of the Northland Chapter of the Brady Campaign, President of  Minnesota Million Moms March, Spokesperson for Protect Minnesota ; aka Japete — seems to be good at this. Actually it seems to be mostly what she does. Report an anecdote and use it to paint all incidents as the same. Of course the FBI.

Of course this ignores the larger problems; gangs and drug cartel activities

  • Highly populated areas accounted for the vast majority of gang homicides: nearly 70 percent occurred in cities with populations over 100,000, and 19 percent occurred in suburban counties in 2011.
  • The number of gang-related homicides increased approximately 10 percent from 2009 to 2010 and then declined slightly (2 percent) from 2010 to 2011 in cities with populations over 100,000.
  • In a typical year in the so-called “gang capitals” of Chicago and Los Angeles, around half of all homicides are gang-related; these two cities alone accounted for approximately one in five gang homicides recorded in the NYGS from 2010 to 2011.

80% of crime – and that would probably include firearm related crime — is attributable to gangs or gang related crime. Domestic violence is another large chunk of firearm related homicides. So if anyone can enact a law that will stop gangs or domestic violence; I’ll write up their Nobel Prize submission letter. But let’s not pretend that the anecdote is representative of the whole.


A tactic always employed by the NRA (National Rifle Association) is the domestic violence aspect. Picture a wife being beaten by her husband. Ordinarily she is defenceless but give her a gun and she might just blow him away next time he comes home drunk and tries to beat her senseless. Fair enough, personal defence is something that is incredibly important but why should a gun be the first resort?

Straw Man argument alert — just who is arguing that a firearm should be the first resort? Anti-rights cultist like this guy. Most gun owners always recommend firearms as a last resort; avoid, deescalate and retreat are the options strongly recommended over and over again. But apparently writing a dissertation length paper doesn’t expose a person to that information. And it appears he forgot how to cite his sources of information. Sure if the NRA was recommending that domestic violence victims resort to firearms first, that would be easy to link to, right?

Some police forces experiment with the use of non-lethal weapons such as tasers (although the safety of these is disputed), sprays and bludgeons.

Law Enforcement have different roles that the average person. But even still many pro-rights advocates also support and use non-lethal means of defense. Notice the clever implications; Police forces try to save lives; gun owners don’t.

Guns usually result in the death of one or both parties and inviting one into the home is just waiting for it to be discharged, either by the abusive husband, the victim wife or, even worse, the unsuspecting child rooting through mummy and daddy’s things and just happening across the weapon – a case which has happened more than once I have to say.

See what I mean! It is as if this guy did his thesis via google search and anti-rights cultist websites such as Brady Campaign. The fact that 40% of the estimated 115,226,802 households have firearms should problem give a person pause before typing something so outrageous. Talk about fear and paranoia! Wow, all those guns — an estimate 46 million homes — just waiting to be used. Of course guns are always used to take lives, never save a life, never for recreation, never for hunting.


To summarise, I am not saying for one minute that guns should be scrapped completely, but there needs to be tighter regulations that restrict who can possess one.


No, you don’t want to scrap guns, you want to scrap the right. You want to turn it into a privilege; offered to only those approved and vetted by the government. Gee, haven’t we seen time and time again how this story plays out (New York City, California for two real life, real time examples).

Currently it is too easy for anyone to walk into a store and buy a firearm without the need for a background check.

I’ll admit to being very snarky in my comment on his site. Personally I think anyone who has written a dissertation on the subject of gun control and can still write that sentence is either flat out lying or is completely incapable of distinguishing reality from gun control fantasy. This isn’t just some person spouting off on the internet; this is supposedly a subject he is well versed in “ I grew to learn a lot about around 2 years ago since it was the matter of my dissertation. ” And yet something so basic as the fact it is federal law that licensed dealers, retail shops or not, have to conduct a background check prior to a a sales escapes this guy.

I’m not just talking handguns here either. The shooting in Aurora in 2012 was perpetrated by a man carrying fully automatic assault rifles – guns bred for no other purpose other than to kill in huge numbers.

Again — I’ll admit to asking if he actually learned anything during his study of gun control laws. Because a.) the murderer carried 1 rifle, 1 shotgun and one pistol, and b.) none of them were select fire weapons. This isn’t esoteric knowledge that could accidentally overlooked in the volume of available information.  This is Firearms 101; select fire weapons have been tightly controlled since 1934 (National Firearms Act)  and very expensive to own since 1986 (Hughes Amendment).

It also perpetuates the myth of ‘no other purpose than to kill’. Again ignoring the sporting and recreational purposes of firearms, ignoring the defensive purposes of firearms; the author uses his personal opinion in place of fact.

It’s far too easy for someone to get a hold of these weapons and use it for deadly force. How many more tragic shootings is America going to have to witness until policy change is effected?

Be very lovely to one another (and stay away from guns)


And again we see a complete avoidance of the reality. Even the Center for Disease Control could not find sufficient evidence to show that a change in policy or law would result in fewer deaths.

Center for Disease Control’s

First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws


During 2000–2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, “shall issue” concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.


And given the simple fact that “more guns = more deaths” is easily dis-proven; shouldn’t someone who has written a dissertation know better?


How about instead of focusing on the tool used; we decide to focus on the reasons why there are murders. How about we address the pathetic state of our mental health system. We look at poverty, education, families, employment — things that affect the reason why people do evil acts.


Please join the discussion.


* Got a reply after I was most of the way through this post

I’m sorry, your reply was a bit long for me to read last night so I skipped over it. I must have accidentally trashed it. Appreciate the feedback though, I would like to hear more about what you have to say.


When Is A Person NOT in the Militia?

Over at Catskil Bob’s Blogosphere, we’ve been having a lively discussion regarding the meaning of the 2nd Amendment – part 1 and part 2. Among other things.

One of the normal anti-rights cultists argument is the “Collective” argument; that the right to keep and bear arms is only something that can be exercised as part of a greater group. Another is the “Militia Only”; that the right to keep and bear arms is only related to the militia and not to an individual’s self defense.

I’ve been trying to come up with a way of framing the issue that makes sense to me and might make sense to those advancing those arguments. So I’m going to purpose a series of hypothetical situations and ask you, my 7 loyal readers, to tell me when the rights of that apply to the “collective/militia” do not apply to the individual.

Scenario #1 —

A Militia unit has been called up, put into uniform  and thrown into battle. The enemy has overran its position and killed all but 1 person.

Scenario #2

In the midst of a battle, an uniformed member of the militia is separated from his unit and is surrounded by the enemy. 

Scenario #3

As part of an offensive, an uniformed member of the militia is sent out alone to scout enemy positions on the battle field.

Scenario #4

As a part of an upcoming offensive, a member of the militia is sent out in civilian clothes to scout enemy positions in a city or town.

Scenario #5

On the way to the front, an uniformed member of the militia is traveling alone. The person is attacked by elements of the enemy forces.

Scenario #6

On the way to the rally point, a member of the militia is attacked by the enemy.

Scenario #7

A member of the militia is at home, just completing a conversation that included a call up to action. The enemy breaks down the door and attacks the member.

Scenario #8

The enemy has obtained a list of militia members and ambushes one of them prior that that person finding out the militia has been called up.

Scenario #9

The enemy has started an active campaign and a person decides to fight with the militia. On the way to the recruiting point, that person is attacked by the enemy.

Scenario #10

The enemy has started an active campaign by assaulting and killing people. A person is in their home unaware of the events.

Scenario #11
A person notices troubling trends and decides in order to stop the enemy that a militia has to be formed. After announcing the intention, the person becomes a target of the enemy in order to stop the formation of the militia.

So does a person have to make a formal declaration, don a uniform, etc in order to be considered part of the militia? That seems to be the argument many anti-rights cultists make, isn’t it?

Of course they are forgetting the legal definition according to federal law.

10 U.S. Code § 311 – Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

Emphasis mine, because it really makes the point that every adult male 17 to 45….and given the federal laws against gender bias, age bias, etc — how long before that definition gets changed again, eh.

The point I’m trying to make is in order to be an active participant in the militia, a person has to survive long enough to get there. That is one of the reasons why the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Because otherwise the opposition could pick off individuals with immunity and stop the militia from forming.

Or they could claim that an individual not found in a group is not part of the militia and therefore has no protection as afforded by the 2nd Amendment.

So –is a person protected in all scenarios or just down to a particular one. Please join the discussion.